Now thinking about him going to that planet leads to the biggest plot hole of the last 2 movies, if he went there and never left, how is there a map leading to him?

He told people he was trying to find the original Jedi Temple. Presumably the map was made by someone else of the original Jedi Temple's location.

OK, so, hmmmm, I guess that could be the case. That person would have had to have been extremely loyal to Luke to keep that secret when his sister and friends spent decades looking for him, begging for any info on where he was. But I guess it could also explain why the map was fragmented, if the person that made it tried to delete it.

That person would also have to be unaware of the threat the first order posed, but I guess that was the case for most of the republic, if Liea's meager forces were all the republic had they certainly didn't think they were in any danger.

I wonder if the novel will have any more info on any of this, I wish they had released the novel at the same time as the movie, reading the novel between viewings of The Force Awakens made the 2nd viewing better. For some reason they are waiting until March 6th to release the novel, that probably means the blu-ray will be coming out in late March or Early April. Rumors are that there are going to be 2 hours of deleted scenes, if true that's got to be a record, enough deleted scenes to make an entire movie? They have to be including different takes on scenes that were not deleted.

I don't understand your line of reasoning Im. I feel like I can always go back and enjoy the original trilogy and the way I see it, I'm never going to let anything stand in the way of my enjoying them.

Sigh. I just don't like the new direction of the franchise. I hate that it ruins my enjoyment of the old one.

I can understand this opinion..I was 8 when the New Hope came out and it changed my life. I loved Empire and RotJ but thought wtf was George Lucas thinking when he made them but I never let it detract from my love of the original trilogy..I'm still mixed about Ep. 7 (killing off Han was not what I wanted to see at all) but actually enjoyed Rogue 1 enough that it brought back memories of my childhood love of the original trilogy.The jury is still out on Ep. 8 because I could only see it in Spanish but when it comes out on blu-ray I will be able to give a better take on this one

Sigh. I just don't like the new direction of the franchise. I hate that it ruins my enjoyment of the old one. This does not make me racist or misogynistic.

Maybe I'm misremembering, but I thought you were an Expanded Universe reader. The books did just as much to mess up the "Happily Ever After" ending of Jedi. The destruction of the second Death Star didn't bring about the end of the empire. New factions emerged. New planet-destroying weapons were created. Luke started a Jedi Temple. It didn't always go well. Han and Leia had a kid that turned evil (And a couple that didn't.) Chewbaca died instead of Han. I kind of lost track of the EU before getting to the later books, but I'm used to the idea that everything wasn't necessarily wrapped up in a tidy package after Jedi.

Anyway, as many have pointed out, this is art, there are no truths or facts.

First, be careful. You are awfully "certain" about that claim. Pak says that's bad, because that means you are treating the claim as self-evident. He might even blame personal attacks on you for such "confident" assertions (though his complaints about certainty do seem to vary according to what the person is certain about, so you may be safe).

Second, your very next statement contradicts the claim there are "no truths or facts" in "art". You declare it is a fact that "certain structures" exist. You declare it is a fact that certain "acting styles" exist. There are TONS of truths and facts in art. AND there are tons of personal evaluations about the art and what’s in it.

It is NOT only “opinions.” Opinions - evaluations - REQUIRE some thing TO evaluate. To know whether you like a thing you first have to HAVE a thing - an existent - facts WHICH one likes or doesn’t like.

Pak and I were discussing matters of fact - the words clearly stated in a film. The actions clearly shown. These and more are facts about the art NOT “opinions”.

Quote

You might find 50+% of people that agree that certain structures or acting styles are preferable, but that doesn't make them correct.

I have already pointed this fact out, but I'll repeat it since it continues to be ignored. In regard to my comments on structure, I simply identified the fact that they were not "original". I didn't claim the structure was "correct" or "incorrect". I made no EVALUATION of it. I simply IDENTIFIED the fact of it.

Apparently you believe identifying something is unoriginal is the same as evaluating that thing as good or bad, correct or incorrect. It is not.

You have to learn to separate your identification from your evaluation.

In other words, you keep declaring (as if “self-evident” ) that there is *only* evaluation. There is only like or dislike - no facts. But your own words contradict that belief. You yourself IDENTIFY that structures, stories, plots, characters, beats etc etc DO exist.

*You* IDENTIFY facts.

And that is what *I* have been doing as well.

It is a fact that TFA repeated straightforward much of the story and beats from ANH. It is a fact that TLJ repeated much of the story and its beats from ESB - though NOT in the same straightforward fashion. And it is a fact that many critics and audience members (be they pro or con of the movie) acknowledge this unoriginality. Crait is Hoth. Luke and Rey training on Ahch-to are Yoda and Luke training on Dagobah. The sea cave is the tree cave, etc.

I simply went through and LISTED all those instances which I considered to be an example of this less straightforward repetition of previous work. Some of them were obvious (as indicated above). Others not so much. And some I may even have gotten wrong (I actually noticed a couple myself after posting). I am happy to entertain any ARGUMENT about them - pro or con - because, contrary to Pak's assertions, I do NOT consider them "self-evident". And if an argument I've presented is wrong, I'd like to know it.

And I’m happy to know it because the point IS knowledge of the facts - of the truth - about the art.

But that identification instead gets attacked here as evaluation. It ain't.

Quote

Best you can ever say about art is what most people agree on, but that doesn't make those opinions facts.

It is not opinion whether a character exists in a film. It is not opinion whether that character does X or Y. It is not an opinion whether that character says X and Y. There are ENORMOUS volumes of FACTUAL things one can IDENTIFY about a film - from the smallest prop to the overall theme. So it is completely FALSE to state (so "certainly" - heh) "the only question that matters is: DO you enjoy it". If there are "NO facts" then there is NO thing for you to "enjoy" - ie no thing for you to evaluate.

Liking or disliking is but a RESPONSE *to* whatever fact(s) you are evaluating. Before you can evaluate - before you can have an "opinion" about a thing - you first have to KNOW a thing. This is true whether the knowledge (the facts) you acquire is superficial or incredibly in-depth.

Your reaction is neither the sole issue nor the primary issue. It is a DERIVATIVE of the facts - of the thing.

Quote

You've latched onto some ideas about the film, others disagreed with those ideas. Both sides can be correct when it comes to opinion.

Except, as noted, the ideas I've spoken about are the identification of FACTS about the movie, not "opinions" ABOUT those facts.

Quote

You have to see the way you have presented your "arguments" would lead to some sarcastic remarks

If they too make the error of conflating identification with evaluation - and claim identification is impossible, claim that there is ONLY evaluation (“opinion”) - then they leave themselves with little else BUT “sarcastic remarks”. If one believes one is talking about one’s self, not facts of reality, then one abandons the realm of reasoning - of presenting rational arguments about facts. As you state, there is nothing TO argue about. There are only your personal feelings - about which no argument is possible. So any “argument” is not an argument at all (which is probably why you put it in scare quotes) but is instead considered a personal attack - because there are NO *facts* to attack. There are only PEOPLE to attack. And so they engage in ad Homs because that is ALL they see as being possible.

Of course, as already noted, the problem is, if all you see are evaluations - NO facts - then WHAT exactly are those evaluations OF? To evaluate something, that thing HAS to first exist. You have to be able to identify it.

That is what I've been doing - identification (and presenting my arguments to support that identification).

So NO, the problem is not the “certainty” with which arguments are presented in regard to facts. The problem is that those spewing insults believe there are NO facts TO identify. They think there are ONLY feelings - and they express their affronted (hurt) feelings by lashing out at those they think have hurt them.

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, as with Sherlock, he sacrificed character, pacing, etc to do so.

Pacing maybe, but character? I thought all the main characters had pretty good development during the run of the series.

Through the run of the series in general they did. And, through most of it, I thought the work they did was amazing. For instance, I really love how the last episode does an entire "Sixth Sense" twist to the Victorian Christmas episode - making ​EVERYTHING about it Sherlock's subconsciousness virtually screaming at him "Do not forget me" about who is revealed in that last episode. And I put "Scandal" in my Top List of films - period. So I'm not throwing shade at the series itself. My comment was specifically meant to be aimed at the last season. As many noted at the time, it was jarring in many respects compared to the rest of the series.

The problem with the characters in the last episode was that there was a bit of a reset done to them. For instance, Sherlock was 'learning' lessons he had already been shown to have learned etc.

Now, I did a deep dive into analyzing that season - so I understand WHY they did those things. It turns out the season is SO tightly integrated in EVERY respect to the theme that it TRULY boggled my mind. There was not ONE creative choice made that wasn't dictated by the theme of the show and the theme of the last season. So it was necessary to the plot and theme to make certain contradictions to what had come before. But my disappointment in the inability of the writers to unify of all aspects of the story - setting, character, plot, plot-theme, and theme - pales in comparison to my astonishment at the unity they were able to achieve in regard to the theme.

For instance, there is a thematic reason Sherlock was called Yellowbeard (a fictional pirate). There was a thematic reason for the Horror motif throughout the last episode. Heck, there was a thematic reason for every NAME clue throughout the season. There was even a thematic reason for Moriarty's reference to cannibals - and to his joke about his childhood book 'The Hungry Donkey'.

Sigh. I just don't like the new direction of the franchise. I hate that it ruins my enjoyment of the old one. This does not make me racist or misogynistic.

I don’t think anyone has called you those things, have they?

I don’t see how more stories can ruin older stories though. The original movies still exist. Just watch those and ignore these, it’s pretty simple.

Yup, I pretend JJ Trek doesn't exist, I know what those stories are but it does nothing to diminish my enjoyment of the original series. Heck most of the TNG movies are so bad they should ruin any enjoyment of that series, but again, just pretend they don't exist and only watch the stuff you like.

Anyway, as many have pointed out, this is art, there are no truths or facts.

First, be careful. You are awfully "certain" about that claim. Pak says that's bad, because that means you are treating the claim as self-evident. He might even blame personal attacks on you for such "confident" assertions (though his complaints about certainty do seem to vary according to what the person is certain about, so you may be safe). Second, your very next statement contradicts the claim there are "no truths or facts" in "art". You declare it is a fact that "certain structures" exist. You declare it is a fact that certain "acting styles" exist. There are TONS of truths and facts in art. AND there are tons of personal evaluations about the art and what’s in it. It is NOT only “opinions.” Opinions - evaluations - REQUIRE some thing TO evaluate. To know whether you like a thing you first have to HAVE a thing - an existent - facts WHICH one likes or doesn’t like. Pak and I were discussing matters of fact - the words clearly stated in a film. The actions clearly shown. These and more are facts about the art NOT “opinions”.

Quote

You might find 50+% of people that agree that certain structures or acting styles are preferable, but that doesn't make them correct.

I have already pointed this fact out, but I'll repeat it since it continues to be ignored. In regard to my comments on structure, I simply identified the fact that they were not "original". I didn't claim the structure was "correct" or "incorrect". I made no EVALUATION of it. I simply IDENTIFIED the fact of it. Apparently you believe identifying something is unoriginal is the same as evaluating that thing as good or bad, correct or incorrect. It is not. You have to learn to separate your identification from your evaluation. In other words, you keep declaring (as if “self-evident” ) that there is *only* evaluation. There is only like or dislike - no facts. But your own words contradict that belief. You yourself IDENTIFY that structures, stories, plots, characters, beats etc etc DO exist. *You* IDENTIFY facts. And that is what *I* have been doing as well. It is a fact that TFA repeated straightforward much of the story and beats from ANH. It is a fact that TLJ repeated much of the story and its beats from ESB - though NOT in the same straightforward fashion. And it is a fact that many critics and audience members (be they pro or con of the movie) acknowledge this unoriginality. Crait is Hoth. Luke and Rey training on Ahch-to are Yoda and Luke training on Dagobah. The sea cave is the tree cave, etc. I simply went through and LISTED all those instances which I considered to be an example of this less straightforward repetition of previous work. Some of them were obvious (as indicated above). Others not so much. And some I may even have gotten wrong (I actually noticed a couple myself after posting). I am happy to entertain any ARGUMENT about them - pro or con - because, contrary to Pak's assertions, I do NOT consider them "self-evident". And if an argument I've presented is wrong, I'd like to know it. And I’m happy to know it because the point IS knowledge of the facts - of the truth - about the art. But that identification instead gets attacked here as evaluation. It ain't.

Quote

Best you can ever say about art is what most people agree on, but that doesn't make those opinions facts.

It is not opinion whether a character exists in a film. It is not opinion whether that character does X or Y. It is not an opinion whether that character says X and Y. There are ENORMOUS volumes of FACTUAL things one can IDENTIFY about a film - from the smallest prop to the overall theme. So it is completely FALSE to state (so "certainly" - heh) "the only question that matters is: DO you enjoy it". If there are "NO facts" then there is NO thing for you to "enjoy" - ie no thing for you to evaluate. Liking or disliking is but a RESPONSE *to* whatever fact(s) you are evaluating. Before you can evaluate - before you can have an "opinion" about a thing - you first have to KNOW a thing. This is true whether the knowledge (the facts) you acquire is superficial or incredibly in-depth. Your reaction is neither the sole issue nor the primary issue. It is a DERIVATIVE of the facts - of the thing.

Quote

You've latched onto some ideas about the film, others disagreed with those ideas. Both sides can be correct when it comes to opinion.

Except, as noted, the ideas I've spoken about are the identification of FACTS about the movie, not "opinions" ABOUT those facts.

Quote

You have to see the way you have presented your "arguments" would lead to some sarcastic remarks

If they too make the error of conflating identification with evaluation - and claim identification is impossible, claim that there is ONLY evaluation (“opinion”) - then they leave themselves with little else BUT “sarcastic remarks”. If one believes one is talking about one’s self, not facts of reality, then one abandons the realm of reasoning - of presenting rational arguments about facts. As you state, there is nothing TO argue about. There are only your personal feelings - about which no argument is possible. So any “argument” is not an argument at all (which is probably why you put it in scare quotes) but is instead considered a personal attack - because there are NO *facts* to attack. There are only PEOPLE to attack. And so they engage in ad Homs because that is ALL they see as being possible. Of course, as already noted, the problem is, if all you see are evaluations - NO facts - then WHAT exactly are those evaluations OF? To evaluate something, that thing HAS to first exist. You have to be able to identify it. That is what I've been doing - identification (and presenting my arguments to support that identification). So NO, the problem is not the “certainty” with which arguments are presented in regard to facts. The problem is that those spewing insults believe there are NO facts TO identify. They think there are ONLY feelings - and they express their affronted (hurt) feelings by lashing out at those they think have hurt them.

Quote

Quote

Unfortunately, as with Sherlock, he sacrificed character, pacing, etc to do so.

Pacing maybe, but character? I thought all the main characters had pretty good development during the run of the series.

Through the run of the series in general they did. And, through most of it, I thought the work they did was amazing. For instance, I really love how the last episode does an entire "Sixth Sense" twist to the Victorian Christmas episode - making ​EVERYTHING about it Sherlock's subconsciousness virtually screaming at him "Do not forget me" about who is revealed in that last episode. And I put "Scandal" in my Top List of films - period. So I'm not throwing shade at the series itself. My comment was specifically meant to be aimed at the last season. As many noted at the time, it was jarring in many respects compared to the rest of the series. The problem with the characters in the last episode was that there was a bit of a reset done to them. For instance, Sherlock was 'learning' lessons he had already been shown to have learned etc. Now, I did a deep dive into analyzing that season - so I understand WHY they did those things. It turns out the season is SO tightly integrated in EVERY respect to the theme that it TRULY boggled my mind. There was not ONE creative choice made that wasn't dictated by the theme of the show and the theme of the last season. So it was necessary to the plot and theme to make certain contradictions to what had come before. But my disappointment in the inability of the writers to unify of all aspects of the story - setting, character, plot, plot-theme, and theme - pales in comparison to my astonishment at the unity they were able to achieve in regard to the theme. For instance, there is a thematic reason Sherlock was called Yellowbeard (a fictional pirate). There was a thematic reason for the Horror motif throughout the last episode. Heck, there was a thematic reason for every NAME clue throughout the season. There was even a thematic reason for Moriarty's reference to cannibals - and to his joke about his childhood book 'The Hungry Donkey'. If there's a Sherlock thread here, I'll post more about it.

Expect this to end up with $300M+ less than Force Awakens (in the US alone).

On the bright side, the tallies from the late Chinese release are rolling in and (while as disappointing as the rest) those numbers are enough for Last Jedi to limp past Beauty and the Beast as 2017's top grossing film, period.